Go to page

"This latter fact together with an importance of horse motifs in Ob-Ugric folklore has been used to argue for locating Proto-Ugric in the southernmost parts of Siberia, in close contact with nomadic steppe peoples if not nomadic themselves. Some loanwords from such sources into Ugric are known as well, perhaps most prominently the numeral '7': *θäpt(V) → H hét,[note 1] M сат /sat/, Kh тапәт /tapət/ (from an Indo-Iranian source; cf. Sanskritsaptá, Avestanhapta, both from Proto-Indo-Iranian*saptá < Proto-Indo-European*septḿ̥)."Ugric languages - Wikipedia, Uralic - Wikipedia (Eskimo–Uralic languages, Indo-Uralic languages, Proto-Uralic language)

The more evidence I come across, less do I endorse AMT or AIT.
I wouldn't even begin to explain the following three unless I am agenda driven, say a Christian or a Marxist.

1) The Saraswati was described as the largest of the rivers that the Vedic people knew. Saraswati is listed in order from east to west, i.e., Ganga, Yamuna, Saraswati, Sutlej and Ravi. Saraswati dried up by about 1800 BC. Aryans came to India in about 1500 BC. To say that the Vedic people picked up the past grandeur of the then dry river Saraswati from the memory of the locals is just from La-La-land.

2) Presence of Mitani at around present-day Syria, who had Indo-Aryan Gods about 1800 BC. While they were separated from geographic space of India by Indo-Iranians. To explain that Indo-Aryans and Indo-Iranians split-up in central Asia and the Indo-Aryans split into two wings, the Mitani and the one heading towards Indo-Saraswati plains, flanking the Indo-Iranians on the east and the west. This can only be agenda driven explanation.

3) Presence of a significant number of Indo-Aryan words in the Finnish language. Note: not Indo-Iranian or Indo-Europian group, but Indo-Aryan ones. Just pick up a world map and look at Finland and try to explain this. Independent Indo-Aryan influence, independent of Indo-Iranian one in Finland and Syria.

So, after the Indo-Aryan and Indo-Iranian split happened, the Indo-Aryans independently influenced Finnish people at the extream north, located to the north of Indo-Europian speaking Slavic people, independent of the Slavic and Indo-Iranian ones. some of them moved to Syria, flanking the Indo-Iranians on the west and most of them moved into India, to the east of Indo-Iranians.

When one puts all of the above three points, both AMT and AIT looks weird.

The problem with most people pursuing pure history is that they have no basic understanding of probability.

Let us look at the three points I have mentioned above. All the three points are real oddities.

The picking up of the memory of a lost river, from the non-existing local people (The whole locality was deserted when the Aryans supposed to have arrived there) some 300 years later, which was described as the largest one known to them. Now, you to also consider that the present day Dravidian or Austro- Asians have no such memory in their language. Let us say that the probability of that being true, as explained by AMT or AIT is 1 in 10.

Let us say that the Mitani flanking the Indo-Iranians from the west has a probability of 1 in 10.

Presence of Indo-Aryan words in the Finnish language has a probability of 1 in 10.

Now, I would like to point out to pure historians, who have no understanding of statistics the probability of all the three happening is one in a thousand - go figure!

I have already given the Sanskrit meaning of 'Aranya'. It is not just 'forest' but 'desert' also. Any place not useful or uninhabited, not generally visited by people. Kindly check that in Sanskrit dictionaries. One of the best is spokensankrit.de, which includes Prof. Apte's Sanskrit Dictionary.

Yamanya was the first,then was Sintashta and then Andronavo. After the Andronavo,the Indo-Aryans split off from the Iranians somewhere near today's Balkh or so. First Indo-Aryan cultures as far as I know is Gandharva grave culture and Swat cultures. Afanasevo is related to Tocharians and except for some interactions,that isn't related to Indo-Iranians.

The route to Tokharistan was was via Samara-Sintashta. You are right about Balkh. One branch perhaps went to Ulugh Depe and Yaz Depe, the other came to BalaMurghab-Herat-Kabul to enter India. If one looks at the map, one can see them hopping from one green vlley to another, but it was a slow process and took a few centuries during which their myths and language changed.

The route to Tokharistan was was via Samara-Sintashta. You are right about Balkh. One branch perhaps went to Ulugh Depe and Yaz Depe, the other came to BalaMurghab-Herat-Kabul to enter India. If one looks at the map, one can see them hopping from one green vlley to another, but it was a slow process and took a few centuries during which their myths and language changed.

I agree about the Indo-Aryan branch. But not the Tocharian part. Sintashta was also fully Proto-Indo-Iranian with a touch with Finno-Ugrics as I read on Wikipedia. Tocharian was the first to separate out from Indo-European. Also,Sintashta and Andronavo are both Satem speaking and R1a haplogroup while Tocharians were R1b and Centum speaking. Sintashta is thought as the origin point of Satemization. You can however continue in the thread I created for this.

The Mittanis kept to the shores of Caspian Sea - Golestan, Mazenderan, Gilan and crossed the Elburz mountains perhaps near Rostamabad to land in Kurdistan. They remained there for some time, engaged the dwindling Assyrian power, and around 1,500 BCE established their kingdom in the Khabur valley. I do not think they went into Iranian mainland otherwise they would have been stuck there.

* Note for ScientistAlexandrus: Kindly take care that DNA/Genetics discussion are not involved. The rules of the forum do not like that.

The Mittanis kept to the shores of Caspian Sea - Golestan, Mazenderan, Gilan and crossed the Elburz mountains perhaps near Rostamabad to land in Kurdistan. They remained there for some time, engaged the dwindling Assyrian power, and around 1,500 BCE established their kingdom in the Khabur valley. I do not think they went into Iranian mainland otherwise they would have been stuck there.

Spot on! Iran was inhabited by Iranian peoples who had already settled on the river valleys there. The major thing is that they would need to cross Mesopotamia on that route which makes it impossible for them not to be absorbed. Also the location is exactly above Mesopotamia and below the lands where Anatolians(oldest Indo-European group) had settled. Hurro-Urartians who were the ones they collaborated there with are also exactly in the Southeast Caucasus which would have enabled them to form this Indo-Aryan and Hurrian Superstate. Also,they were also fairly friends with the Anatolians as it appears. The puzzle seems to be taking form!

Historum

Founded in 2006, Historum is a history forum dedicated to history discussions and historical events. Our community welcomes everyone from around the world to discuss world history, historical periods, and themes in history - military history, archaeology, arts and culture, and history in books and movies.